[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Ramesh Jaiswal vs Chhattisgarh State Information ... on 21 April, 2026
1
YOGESH Digitally 2026:CGHC:18008
signed by
YOGESH TIWARI
TIWARI Date: 2026.04.21
17:00:35 +0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WPC No. 3322 of 2021
Ramesh Jaiswal S/o Shri Kunj Bihari Jaiswal Aged About 56 Years
Currently Posted As Joint Director Regional Office, Urban Administration
And Development Chhattisgarh, Raipur Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioner
versus
1 - Chhattisgarh State Information Commission Through Its Secretary,
Sector - 19, North Block, Atal Nagar, District Raipur 492002,
Chhattisgarh.
2 - Public Information Officer Municipal Corporation Raipur
Chhattisgarh.
3 - Gyaneshwar Yadu (Advocate) Communication Address Civil Court,
Raipur, Chhattisgarh. Mobile No. 919630823365.
... Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Petitioner : Mr. Adil Minhaj, Advocate on behalf of Mr.
Pragalbha Sharma, Advocate
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Anumeh Shrivastava, Advocate
For Respondent No.2 : Mr. H.B. Agrawal, Senior Advocate assisted
by Ms. A. Sandhya Rao, Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge
Order on Board
21.04.2026
1. By filing the present petition, the petitioner assails the order dated
26.02.2021 (ANNEXURE P-1) passed by Respondent No. 1-
Commission, whereby the petitioner has been held to be the
Public Information Officer responsible for not providing the
requisite information within the prescribed period and for the delay
in submitting a reply before the Commission, and consequently, a
penalty of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed upon the petitioner..
The petitioner has prayed for following relief(s) :-
"10.1 Call for the entire records of Second
Appeal Case No. A/239/2017.
10.2 Set-aside / quash the order dated
Second Appeal Case No. A/239/2017.
10.3 Pass such other order or orders that this
Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order
dated 26.02.2021 is wholly arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the
provisions of Section 20 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 (for
short, 'Act of 2005'). It is contended that the petitioner was never
designated as the Public Information Officer at the relevant point
of time, nor was the original application dated 20.10.2016
submitted before him. The said application was admittedly filed
before and dealt with by the duly appointed Public Information
Officer, who had further forwarded the same to the concerned
department. In such circumstances, fastening liability upon the
petitioner by treating him as a deemed Public Information Officer is
misconceived and unsustainable in law.
3. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner, in fact, had
furnished the information vide letter dated 04.01.2017 upon
communication received from the concerned authority, thereby
demonstrating his bona fide conduct and due diligence. It is
argued that the essential ingredients for imposition of penalty
under Section 20 of the Act of 2005, namely mala fide denial of
information or unreasonable delay attributable to the concerned
officer, are completely absent in the present case. Moreover, the
petitioner was neither impleaded as a party before the First
Appellate Authority nor was he afforded a proper and effective
opportunity of hearing before the Respondent Commission, thus
vitiating the impugned order on account of violation of principles of
natural justice.
4. It is also submitted that the Respondent Commission has failed to
appreciate the factual matrix in its correct perspective and has
mechanically imposed the penalty without recording any finding as
to deliberate or intentional lapse on the part of the petitioner. In
absence of any cogent material to establish that the petitioner was
responsible for withholding the information or causing delay, the
imposition of penalty is wholly unjustified and liable to be set
aside.
5. On the other hand, learned senior counsel for the Corporation
submits that the information as sought by respondent No. 3 has
already been supplied to him. It is further submitted that insofar as
the delay is concerned, the relevant period coincided with the
outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, during which there was a
complete lockdown and normal functioning of offices was severely
disrupted. In such extraordinary circumstances, the delay, if any, in
furnishing the information cannot be attributed to any deliberate or
intentional lapse on the part of the petitioner. It is contended that
there was no mala fide intention to withhold the information and,
therefore, the essential conditions for imposition of penalty under
Section 20 of the Act of 2005 are not satisfied. Hence, the
petitioner cannot be saddled with the penalty.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused
the record with due care.
7. From a perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that
the application under the Act of 2005 was not originally filed before
the petitioner, nor was he the designated Public Information Officer
at the relevant point of time. It also appears that the information,
as sought by respondent No. 3, was ultimately furnished, though
with some delay. The explanation offered regarding such delay,
particularly in light of the unprecedented situation arising out of the
COVID-19 pandemic and the resultant nationwide lockdown,
which severely affected the normal functioning of governmental
offices, cannot be brushed aside and deserves due consideration.
8. It is well settled that for invoking the provisions relating to penalty
under Section 20 of the Act of 2005, the authority concerned must
record a clear and specific finding of mala fide denial of
information or an unreasonable and unexplained delay directly
attributable to the concerned officer. In the present case, no such
categorical finding has been recorded by the Respondent
Commission. Moreover, the record does not prima facie indicate
any intentional or deliberate inaction on the part of the petitioner
so as to attract penal consequences. In absence of any cogent
material demonstrating mala fide conduct, the imposition of
penalty appears to be unjustified and not in consonance with the
statutory scheme of the Act of 2005.
9. A further perusal of the record would reveal that there is nothing to
indicate that the petitioner had acted with any ulterior motive or
deliberate intent to withhold the information sought by respondent
No. 3. On the contrary, the material on record suggests that the
information was ultimately supplied, and the delay, if any, stands
reasonably explained. The justification put forth by learned senior
counsel for the Corporation, attributing the delay to the disruption
caused by the COVID-19 lockdown, appears to be plausible and
acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
10. In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the considered opinion that
the essential ingredients for imposition of penalty under Section 20
of the Act of 2005 are conspicuously absent in the present case.
There is no material to demonstrate that the petitioner committed
any mala fide or intentional act in not furnishing the information
within the prescribed period. Consequently, the impugned order
imposing penalty cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
11. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances, this Court finds
it to be a fit case to exercise its jurisdiction for interference.
Accordingly, the impugned order dated 26.02.2021, insofar as it
imposes a penalty of Rs. 10,000/- upon the petitioner, deserves to
be and is hereby set aside.
12. Resultantly, the present writ petition stands allowed. No order as
to costs.
Sd/--
(Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge
Yogesh
